Why not? One of them is “no drug testing ever,” which is pretty much what you describe in the rest of your post.
Assuming you’re talking hourly employees here, I doubt you can legally send them home without pay for the entire day; you have to pay them for their time on the clock.
This is my position.
I know people who use drugs. You know the only thing they all have in common, apart from their drug use? The fact that they all hold down responsible jobs that pay over the median wage. Oh, and the vast majority of them have post-graduate degrees, mortgages, and families.
I agree with what others have said. I wouldn’t plan on doing any drug testing. But I’d want to reserve the theoretical option to do it in the future if I had a reason to feel an employee was using drugs in a way that affected his or her job. So “other”.
No drug testing. I’d prefer if they didn’t do drug deals in the parking lot (or on the premises) and there might be a good case for employees not being high at work. I don’t know; I’ve worked with people who got high at work, and some of them were quite competent and others weren’t. It didn’t seem to have anything to do with the drug.
I never got this. I’m at work, doing what I do. I can do it if I’m a little buzzed, or a little high, or if I have a cold, or if I’m a little worried about something at home. In some cases in the past, quite frankly, being a little buzzed actually helped me buckle down and get through something boring.
None.
If they are doing their job, great. I don’t care what they’re doing on their off time. If they’re coming to work and acting stupid and not getting the job done, they’re fired whether they’re doing drugs or not.
I don’t approve of illegal drug use (and I think legal drugs are over-prescribed), but I wouldn’t require any drug testing of my employees. It starts things off on the wrong foot. If their job performance is not good then that’s an issue, if they’re caught with drugs at work that’s a legal issue.
For those of you (read: practically everyone 
) who has voted for “no testing”: do you have a specific sort of business in mind? Would your answer change if you were, say, managing a medical practice or taxi service?
No.
I work in a nuclear facility in Canada. No testing.
Depends on the start up. If it operates with dangerous equipment, vehicles etc, I would institute a strict policy. If it is opening a retail store, the only rule is, if your under the influence of an illegal substance at work, youre no longer working.
Anecdotal: My husband had a job–a horrible job, with an alleged Fortune 500 company–where he had to have a pre-employment drug screen, as did everyone there. This was the scuzziest group of coworkers he’d ever had. While he was there (about a year) one of them was fired for stealing customers’ credit-card info, another was fired for criminal activity, to wit mugging someone at the airport (which apparently was a regular thing but she didn’t get caught before), one of them got a kickback for taking the calls & info and then dispatching a different company (a former employee) to do the job, and one of them was fired for gaining access to everybody’s HR records (and was caught because she gossiped about what was in those records). A bunch of really stupid people, but they all passed the drug test. And yet, a lot of them did use drugs.
He went from there to a company that doesn’t screen, doesn’t have these kinds of problems with employees, and most of them seem to be upstanding citizens. As far as he can tell, damn few of them use drugs, although there is some drinking.
I’m only in favor of it in a couple of cases. Anybody who works at a drug-screening company needs to be tested. I guess it makes sense to test cops. It also makes sense to randomly test people who have access to drugs (hospital, pharmacist). If you’re going to test anybody, I mean.
A company with contracts with entities that specify drug testing? I’d avoid those contracts.
I once took a job after being contacted by a headhunter. A week or two into employment, I was told it was time for my drug test. (It was due to a government contract)
This had not been made clear from the beginning, and I was furious. I got my things together and went home. I shut off my cell (they were calling every few minutes).
Once I got over my anger, I called and spoke with management. He told me that if I could pass one test, at my convenience, he would see that my name never got picked by the random process used for spot checks (so much for accuracy of spot checking).
Six weeks later I passed a piss test. I finished up my one year contract and went off to start my own business.
Bear in mind that any accident that happens on your property, even the office drone who leave a drawer out and trips over it later; or on your time, like the sales rep who gets t-boned; or the telecommuter who leans back in his chair in his home (so long as it’s at his workstation) and bonks his head is covered under your workman’s comp insurance. That insurance company will require a drug test at the ER/clinic, and if you don’t mind having baked employees, they sure do. They will cancel your required-by-law policy, or raise your premiums ruinously high.
Admittedly it’s been 15 years since I’ve had a worker’s comp claim, but I’m not persuaded that getting drug tested is routinely required. May I trouble you for a cite?
I’ve had employees injured on the job and do not recall any drug testing. I’d appreciate a cite as well.
No testing, I think it’s unethical. But if I find paraphernalia on the premises, you’re out.
Slithy Tove: I work at an insurance company and take work comp claims on a daily basis. I *promise *you, the insurance company does not have any rules about drug testing. That’s strictly up to the employer. Some states even forbid it outright (Vermont being one, IIRC). If the facts of loss support the question, the adjuster may ask if drug use is suspected (which would be a red flag, but not cause for outright denial).
In this case, wouldn’t driving the company car through a public fountain be enough in itself? Unless the police investigation showed that some other car ran the employee off the road, I can’t imagine why it would matter whether said employee plowed granny down because he was baked, because he was a very bad/careless driver, or because he has major road rage issues.
Can you define “paraphernalia”?
I ask because a friend was recently hassled over paraphernalia in his car at a sobriety checkpoint. The guy is a fisherman and had just purchased a couple of hemostats for use in fly tying, hook removal,etc.
He sat at the roadside taking up two cops’ time until a third cop wandered over and vouched for the guy (they had fished together or something).
ZigZags maybe? Another friend hand rolls loose tobacco to save money.
I’d want to have the right to test randomly, and/or at my discretion. I wouldn’t
waste a lot money doing unnecessary tests, but I definitely want to have that option.
I have seen the horror of an entire office in the thrall of a Director who did cocaine and drank too much and threw a lot of parties after work. Although it was never stated outright, folks felt their jobs/futures depended upon keeping him company whenever he asked them to.
We couldn’t snag him for the implied pressure, but we could have gotten him for the illegal usage, had we put such a policy in place. :smack:
In the end we hired a private detective, who provided info to the police in order to arrest the guy. His jail time interfered with his productivity, so we were able to rid ourselves of him.
Depends on the business.
Guys, you know I don’t ever play the “I AM the shore patrol” card on this mb, but I am an OSHA-certified safety inspector at an industrial plant in a company with a couple dozen other plants nation-wide with 7,000 employees, and as such I’m lawyered to the gills. So please allow me to post these random thoughts:
Vermont is the exception, so I’d advise you to set up there. Or even Maine, where only pre-hire and post accident testing is allowed.
I’ll agree that bank tellers with coke habits are no more likely to embezzle that any other bank teller. But lathes, stamping mills, forklifts, cranes, etc. are no place for an impaired operator.
“As long as they do their job it’s none of my business.” Then one day they kill a coworker, and you’re being cross-examined by the widow’s tort lawyer because you have the deep pockets.
And finally: my profession in this field over the last six years has given me an enhanced appreciation for the great majority of you members of the SDMB. Before then, I found your online company agreeable because bullshit is annoying. But now I’ve seen firsthand that bullshit kills.